Poll: Will we ever need a new generation of consoles at all? [NOT a "NOW" question]

[Susurrus]

SNIP

Look, I don't know what the exchange rate of US£ to UK£ is at the moment, but in the UK, the PS3 came out at £450. At that time, according to wikipedia, if that price had translated to the US, it would have been: $827. It was hugely expensive, and lacked the backward compatibility too.

A gaming PC sets you back between £650 - £1250, fine, but it used to be a couple of grand, so the price IS decreasing, and the next console generation ISN'T here yet.

 

[Quellist]

We do simply because no PC is viable as a gaming machine for 5 years or more, not unless you are prepared to pay silly money for it.

Also consoles dont have graphics card issues and need new drivers...

 

[Lazyjim]

I think you're overlooking the fact that many gamers don't like pc gaming. You are also overlooking the fact that gaming consoles, while they are getting more expensive, are still cheaper than a good gaming computer. A good gaming computer is not "inexpensive." Even if you build it yourself, a top-end gaming computer will cost over a grand. I doubt that the next generation of consoles will be much over $500

There are several problems with this arguement, which is trotted out over and over again, is that;
A. A top end gaming PC is vastly more powerful than a console, a machine of comparable power is obtainable for around $600-$700
B. You don't include the Price of the TV in a Console, so don't include the price of a monitor in the PC. (If you really wanted to you could hook your PC up to your TV.)
c. At the beginning when the consoles costed the most, they were sold at a loss.
D. Aforementioned PC machine with comparable capbilites to the consoles is still a superior option becasue of it's versatility.
E. Games are cheaper on PC, not just $10-15 cheaper either, you can get them for ridiculously low prices via the digital distribution services.


Weighed against this is the PC true downsides, consoles are undeniably more user freindly. However even this is changing. The digital distribution services auto isntall and patch your games. (And the consoles are beginnign to require epic patches.)


Still there will always be peopel who don't want even to attempt even the minor hurdles that PC gaming presents, and the new streaming gaming services will offer even less hassle than cosnosles (Provided you have a good internet connection.)

 

[Frizzle]

I think you're overlooking the fact that many gamers don't like pc gaming. You are also overlooking the fact that gaming consoles, while they are getting more expensive, are still cheaper than a good gaming computer. A good gaming computer is not "inexpensive." Even if you build it yourself, a top-end gaming computer will cost over a grand. I doubt that the next generation of consoles will be much over $500

I said "other" because I think that a lot of people like certain aspects of the console. Many like to sit on their couches and be comfortable while playing games. Not saying a computer chair isn't comfortable, but unless you live in a studio apartment, it's unlikely the computer in your home is somewhere in the open area of your house. and we all know how well that whole "keyboard on your lap, mouse on the cushion" thing works.
When we do get a new generation it needs to be upgradeable though. Hell even the N64 had upgradeable RAM.... I think that will be necessary to make consoles successful in the long term. It would make it even better for manufacturers: they come out with new stuff, and you have to buy parts from them to upgrade it. People can swallow multiple smaller purchases easier than one big one (a new console).

WHY WOULD YOU GIVE THEM THIS IDEA!? This is a great idea for them, not so much for us. A new console is basically an upgrade, but it costs less because they can't make you swallow so big of a price all at once.

Haha, but I think it could work out well for us. By example, let's take a game like Crysis 2. (working like it should) It is pretty intensive, graphically, by my understanding. Let's also pretend (for the sake of argument) that the Xbox couldn't handle it in it's original form. Since it's a step in technology, Microsoft could have the option to upgrade the graphics processor to the next 'level' of what they offer, in order to play this game at it's fullest capacity. Now this doesn't necessarily work out only in favor of microsoft. If you don't like Crysis, then you have no need to upgrade your card. It basically lets you stay at which ever "generation" of console you like, for as long as you like. If you enjoy just downloading Indi puzzle games from Xbox Live, then you're actually getting a better deal, because you can buy the lowest spec console they offer, and just use that.

This would theoretically (in my head) get rid of any backwards compatibility problem that systems currently have. You can play your games for decades, and then upgrade your new GPU/CPU/RAM whenever you want. The only thing that would cause any strife, is if the console maker decided to switch the OS of their operating system. I mean we honestly have the technology to make all parts of the computer "plug and play". And if they have to go through the process of testing by each console maker, then you're virtually guaranteed that the parts will work.

I might be missing a crucial point, but in my current state of post-pancake enjoyment, it sounds pretty good for both sides.

 

[plugav]

A new generation of consoles would make game development even more expensive. Which would make games even more expensive. And shorter, and simpler. So no, I don't think anyone needs that.

Also, with games being published across all platforms, the lack of new consoles means I don't have to upgrade my PC as often.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

Damn it. I voted before reading the OP and thought this was about how maybe current consoles were powerful enough that a new generation wasn't needed (at least for the foreseeable future).

I'm not sure we're quite at the point where consoles are going away, though I think we're moving much closer. There are several things that need to happen first:
(1) Console manufacturers need to produce higher-quality peripherals for PCs. Before you can get rid of the 360, you need to be able to connect four 360 controllers to a PC easily and have them work as effortlessly as they do on the console.
(2) Gaming computers need to get a bit cheaper.
(3) PC manufacturers need to sell fewer models that are easier to understand. You need to be able to check a game's box, read one number, and know whether or not your PC can play the game. Part of the allure of a console is that you KNOW it can play the game without worrying about RAM, GPU, CPU, etc.
(4) PC OSes need a better app system, so gamers can play things as thoughtlessly as they do sticking a disc into a 360.

Note that none of these things need preclude current trends in PC gaming. Just because you've made standardized computers akin to consoles doesn't mean you can't build them from components too. Just because games are sure to run on certain hardware doesn't mean that they can't provide higher settings just like they do now. Just because you've made an OS that can do things using an app system doesn't mean you can't have the systems we're familiar with just under the surface.

I think the key here is that all of these things could be done right now. Pretty easily in fact. So, despite the fact that they haven't been done, we could conceivably not need a new generation of consoles. On the other hand, keeping titles exclusive to proprietary hardware is probably worth too much money for this to change any time soon.

 

[Dr Jones]

it wasnt a problem with PS2 games, why is it a problem now?

Because your personal taste differs from what is popular at the moment. Personally then i have barely any problem with the games this generation. Play Metal Gear Solid 4, and tell me the same with a straight face. (i dare you!)

 

[Joby Baumann]

i think that (comparing pc graphic to console graphics) they are about the same, sure pc has a few more polygons, but in all honesty once graphics are at early 360 stages they look fine,

now imagine if instead of pumping all of the money and work into hardware, pixel shaders, and showing all of the scratches on the weapons, that they worked on story and gameplay.

TL;DR: graphics are nice and all, but they arent what brings someone to play a game

 

[Lazyjim]

r PCs. Before you can get rid of the 360, you need to be able to connect four 360 controllers to a PC easily and have them work as effortlessly as they do on the console.
(2) Gaming computers need to get a bit cheaper.
(3) PC manufacturers need to sell fewer models that are easier to understand. You need to be able to check a game's box, read one number, and know whether or not your PC can play the game. Part of the allure of a console is that you KNOW it can play the game without worrying about RAM, GPU, CPU, etc.
(4) PC OSes need a better app system, so gamers can play things as thoughtlessly as they do sticking a disc into a 360.

1. you can already do this, though from personal experiance getting the 360 controller to work with microsoft's PC software is a pain.

2. Gaming computers are already prerty damn cheap, the $1000+ for any sort of gaming PC has long been a fallacy.

3. This is a problem, but there is a legion of people who devote their time to analyzing these prodcuts, evaluating them and opining on their worth. They then post this infomation freely on the web. A little light research is required, thats all.

4. This hasn't been a problem for quite a while, PC games have had auto launchers since at least 2000, put the disk in and it gives a prompt asking you if you want to launch the game.
The introduction of services like Steam has only simplified this process. Boot up your client and start the game you want.

 

[Mr Jack]

Proof that the "You need a $1000 PC to game" idea is incorrect: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/phenom-ii-overclock-graphics-card,review-32280.html

I think you're overlooking the fact that many gamers don't like pc gaming. You are also overlooking the fact that gaming consoles, while they are getting more expensive, are still cheaper than a good gaming computer. A good gaming computer is not "inexpensive." Even if you build it yourself, a top-end gaming computer will cost over a grand. I doubt that the next generation of consoles will be much over $500

I said "other" because I think that a lot of people like certain aspects of the console. Many like to sit on their couches and be comfortable while playing games. Not saying a computer chair isn't comfortable, but unless you live in a studio apartment, it's unlikely the computer in your home is somewhere in the open area of your house. and we all know how well that whole "keyboard on your lap, mouse on the cushion" thing works.
When we do get a new generation it needs to be upgradeable though. Hell even the N64 had upgradeable RAM.... I think that will be necessary to make consoles successful in the long term. It would make it even better for manufacturers: they come out with new stuff, and you have to buy parts from them to upgrade it. People can swallow multiple smaller purchases easier than one big one (a new console).

WHY WOULD YOU GIVE THEM THIS IDEA!? This is a great idea for them, not so much for us. A new console is basically an upgrade, but it costs less because they can't make you swallow so big of a price all at once.

Haha, but I think it could work out well for us. By example, let's take a game like Crysis 2. (working like it should) It is pretty intensive, graphically, by my understanding. Let's also pretend (for the sake of argument) that the Xbox couldn't handle it in it's original form. Since it's a step in technology, Microsoft could have the option to upgrade the graphics processor to the next 'level' of what they offer, in order to play this game at it's fullest capacity. Now this doesn't necessarily work out only in favor of microsoft. If you don't like Crysis, then you have no need to upgrade your card. It basically lets you stay at which ever "generation" of console you like, for as long as you like. If you enjoy just downloading Indi puzzle games from Xbox Live, then you're actually getting a better deal, because you can buy the lowest spec console they offer, and just use that.

This would theoretically (in my head) get rid of any backwards compatibility problem that systems currently have. You can play your games for decades, and then upgrade your new GPU/CPU/RAM whenever you want. The only thing that would cause any strife, is if the console maker decided to switch the OS of their operating system. I mean we honestly have the technology to make all parts of the computer "plug and play". And if they have to go through the process of testing by each console maker, then you're virtually guaranteed that the parts will work.

I might be missing a crucial point, but in my current state of post-pancake enjoyment, it sounds pretty good for both sides.

The problem with this "upgrade forever" idea is that at certain point, it is easier to start over again.

For the same reason that you cannot go out and buy a shiny Intel i7 2600k and drop it into an old motherboard, you could not incorporate all new technology into your system.

Sure, over time you can make incremental improvements to existing technology, but you cannot do anything truly new. Sooner or later, you will reach the limits of the existing system architecture. Then, you need a new system, and the easiest way to do that is to release a new console.

Suggesting that we could make all computer components could be made plug and play is like suggesting we could make all car components plug and play.

You cannot have a universal upgrade system that works for everyone with every part. Having that instant compatibility means sacrificing diversity. This would not only affect users, but developers too. One of the difficulties of creating PC games is ensuring that the game will run on the vast number of different hardware configurations out there. If you had this multi-level system it would increase development costs as well.

The system you suggest would sacrifice the advantages of consoles; instant compatibility, no research needed, low maintenance; gain the disadvantages of PC's; frequently incompatible hardware, knowledge of hardware needed; while not gaining any significant advantage.

 

[Greatjusticeman]

I think one more generation of consoles would do us for awhile.

Studios are starting to get frustrated with the limited power of the current generation since they now have the capability to stretch past that.

Plus, a new Xbox needs to be made that actually has a blu-ray player. I'm sick of installing two-three discs for those big games.

 

[Razzius]

We need consoles. I loved my sega genesis, ps1 and 2 and my sega dreamcast (Yes, i know, it died before it even had a chance to live so shut up). I play tons and tons of pc games, but i miss the feeling of a controller in my hand, moving the sticks around like two nipples, mashing r1 to fire and l2/r2 to cycle through my armory until i developed a twitch. It's so much more interactive, somehow. wasd and a mouse don't have the same effect. you can't bob and weave with your character when bullets whiz by or cars explode, can't bend with your plane as you bank hard avoiding missles, can't GRIP anything during heated last-man-standing battles and then throw said object at your screen when you fail. you'll knock stuff down, break your keyboard/mouse, etc. I got the ps2 emulator thinking i missed the ps2 games (after i destroyed it by dropping it during my move to college), but it's not the games. it's the whole package.

 

[sinterklaas]

Consoles seem to get more and more like PC's, so why not just buy a PC when even averagely priced PC's are already a billion times better than a console. I don't get the love for consoles, they're always years behind on technology and really, with consoles becoming more PC like they're getting more expensive. Plug and play is basically the only positive that consoles have going for them.

Not to mention that consoles are the reason PC's get shitty ports.

 

[RaggedKarma]

...
(3) PC manufacturers need to sell fewer models that are easier to understand. You need to be able to check a game's box, read one number, and know whether or not your PC can play the game. Part of the allure of a console is that you KNOW it can play the game without worrying about RAM, GPU, CPU, etc.
...

Didn't Microsoft try this with their Windows Experience Index? Is that still a thing?

My issue with PC gaming is exemplified with the latest RAGE release, regardless of the costs and similar, the sheer convenience of a console trumps the technological superiority. Plus I love me my iMac : )

I personally use OnLive as my platform of choice. After a short time playing and trying out games on the service, waiting for even an XBLA game to download feels like an eternity.

I don't know whether Ottawa (Canada) just happens to be close to a server or something, but aside from a few days after the UK launch, it has been as if I was playing locally. Borderlands on the microconsole is better than on the Xbox (it's running the PC version, and well).

As an emergent platform it does have issues, not least of all game selection. But the awesome potential of giving developers a single, guaranteed, minimum spec to develop for (scalable by need), rather than either hamstringing for a 5yr-old console or a wild guess of 'average' PC spec in 2-5 years time when the game ships, will be something to see.

The future is far too far away for me : (

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

Yes. Consoles are behind on tech, and that's almost never a good thing. It ain't now either. I'd gladly pay for a new xbox and playstation.

 

[dickywebster]

Consoles as they stand arent going to be able to get a whole lot more powerful without large increases in cost, besides theres not much of a need.
Its the games i think could do with an upgrade, or at least add a few more colours in...

 

[AnarchistFish]

Yes, but not quite yet

 

[Frizzle]

Proof that the "You need a $1000 PC to game" idea is incorrect: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/phenom-ii-overclock-graphics-card,review-32280.html



The problem with this "upgrade forever" idea is that at certain point, it is easier to start over again.

For the same reason that you cannot go out and buy a shiny Intel i7 2600k and drop it into an old motherboard, you could not incorporate all new technology into your system.

Sure, over time you can make incremental improvements to existing technology, but you cannot do anything truly new. Sooner or later, you will reach the limits of the existing system architecture. Then, you need a new system, and the easiest way to do that is to release a new console.

Suggesting that we could make all computer components could be made plug and play is like suggesting we could make all car components plug and play.

You cannot have a universal upgrade system that works for everyone with every part. Having that instant compatibility means sacrificing diversity. This would not only affect users, but developers too. One of the difficulties of creating PC games is ensuring that the game will run on the vast number of different hardware configurations out there. If you had this multi-level system it would increase development costs as well.

The system you suggest would sacrifice the advantages of consoles; instant compatibility, no research needed, low maintenance; gain the disadvantages of PC's; frequently incompatible hardware, knowledge of hardware needed; while not gaining any significant advantage.

While I agree with your last pargraph, I would argue a few other things. Firstly: you can't compare consoles to cars. Cars are built for many different purposes, from hauling heavy equipment, to going fast, to getting great fuel economy. If we only used cars for one purpose, like fuel economy, then yes you could most definitely make it so parts were interchangeable (Read: how Nissan came back from the brink of bankruptcy).
I don't think it would increase development costs in any significant way, because it would be the console makers selling the upgrade components. So if you bought your Xbox from Microsoft, then you would also get the parts from them. The idea I'm talking about is in the same vein as the "give them the razor, sell them the blades" concept. You can sell a basic system for super duper cheap, then make the money off the parts.

As you said, this does unfortunately make it so people would have to have some idea of what was currently in their system, which would turn many off from it. So I can see that being a limiting factor. I do think that it would be less of a problem overall than one might think. We truly can make these parts plug and play. The only real problem would be connecting some of the wires, but that can be easily overcome by large IKEA-style pictures, and color coded ports for where things go (and numbered for the light spectrum impaired). 10 years ago I can buy the fact that people don't want or need to get inside our electronics, but it's an area of our lives that is very important now. Not everyone needs to know how to build one from duct tape and paperclips, but you should be able to use plugs and not electrocute yourself.

Perhaps "decades" was a bit long on the time line, but you could get a significantly longer amount of playtime out of a console that you can upgrade (just like people keep their computers forever, while only replacing the insides).

I'm off to class now, but I'll be back in a few hours.

 

[Richardplex]

I'm still waiting on Virtual Reality. A man can dream...
[small] I've been watching .hack// recently. Might have some influence on my opinion.[/small]

For a more serious answer, yes, one more, just to raise the lower bound of RAM for game developers to play with, so when consoles slowly fade from existance, they don't cripple gaming until they finally completely disappear.